The Polish courts’ information portal: how to automate case monitoring (and what cannot be automated)

Published:

What the Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych shows a legal representative, what an AI assistant can check through a connector on the firm’s own account, and what — receipt of served documents, filings — remains a human act.

Most legal representatives in Poland start the day the same way: log in to the courts’ information portal, open the list of cases, click into each one in turn to check whether a new document, a new court action or a date has appeared. With a few dozen cases that is a quarter of an hour; with a few hundred it is a substantial part of someone’s day. The portal does send e-mail notifications, but a notification says that “something changed”, not what, and lands in an inbox next to a hundred other messages. The question of whether this can be automated has two answers: the checking — yes, and the portal regulation lists external applications using the API as one route of access; acts with procedural effects — no, and deliberately so.

This article is for law firms that want to know where that line runs before someone sells them an “automatic portal”. The facts about the portal and about service of documents are stated as at 14 September 2026, with a list of sources at the end. It describes the technical and organisational side — not legal advice: how a firm uses its own account and how it counts time limits is for the firm itself to determine.

What the portal actually shows — and on what basis

The Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych — the information portal of the Polish common courts — is run by the Minister of Justice, with the work of maintaining it entrusted to the Court of Appeal in Wrocław; its basis is Article 53e of the Law on the Organisation of Common Courts, and the technical conditions, the procedure for opening accounts and the way cases are made available are set by the Minister of Justice’s regulation of 20 February 2026 (Journal of Laws item 216), in force since 1 March 2026 and replacing the regulation of 12 March 2024. According to the Ministry’s announcement of 2 March 2026, the portal is used by more than 483,000 citizens, 65,000 professional representatives and 13,000 institutional users, and cases are opened around 9 million times a month.

A registered user who has been granted access to a case sees in it:

What you see in the portal What it means for automation
Case status — the stage of the proceedings One value to compare with yesterday’s
The court’s actions with a date and the person responsible A list on which a new entry can be detected
Scheduled hearing dates Calendar data, with a reminder
Documents produced by the court: outgoing letters, judgments, orders, statements of reasons, records A new file to download, summarise and attach to the case
The electronic record with audio playback Material for transcription on the firm’s side
Service of documents in the “My Deliveries” module (professional representatives) A signal to a person — not to an automaton

Two things the portal does itself are worth knowing before a project. First, it sends e-mail notifications about changes in cases — a ready, if meagre, “check this” signal. Second, it offers an automatic speech-to-text service for the electronic record; the terms stipulate that such a text is not a transcript within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and that a request may be rejected because of the low quality of the recognition. In other words: the court provides a raw text, but the transcript the firm will work on is made by the firm.

What a representative checks by hand every day

Broken down into actions, the daily review looks like this:

  • opening every active case and comparing the list of actions with yesterday’s;
  • checking the deliveries module: whether a new document has arrived and how many days are left until service is deemed effective;
  • copying new hearing dates into the firm’s calendar and the lawyers’ calendars;
  • downloading the court’s new documents and attaching them to the case in the practice software;
  • passing the information on to the client and the lawyer in charge, usually by e-mail or in conversation.

The first four points are comparing, copying and downloading — work that has every trait of a good automation candidate: repetitive, based on data that already exists in machine form, with a rule that can be written down and a mistake that is visible at once. The fifth — informing the client — stays with the lawyer: the assistant will prepare a draft message, but will not send it. And hidden in the second point is an act that looks similar and is something entirely different — receiving a served document, of which more below.

What an assistant can check through a connector

A connector is software that, on behalf of the account’s user, reads from the portal what that user can see and passes it on — to an AI assistant, a calendar, the practice software. The regulation of 20 February 2026 lists among the technical conditions for using the portal “a current-version web browser or a third-party application using the information portal’s application programming interface (API)” — so the regulation names external software as a technical route of access, and the Polish Bar Council, already at the change of the account model on 30 June 2025, reported an API configuration allowing only professional cases to be pulled into a firm’s systems. Commercial connectors for practice-management software also exist. The scope of that access, how it is obtained and whether a specific solution complies with the terms are set by the portal’s operator and checked by the firm — that is not a legal assessment on our part.

Our MCP server for the information portal does the same, only it exposes the data to an AI assistant rather than to one program — and we deliver it only as part of an AI implementation in the firm, not as a separate product. On the firm’s account the assistant can:

  • compare the status of every case with the previous read and report only the differences — a new action, a new document, a new date;
  • summarise a new court document, indicating what it concerns and what time limits follow from it, for a lawyer to check;
  • enter a hearing date into the calendar and set a reminder, according to the firm’s rules;
  • count how many days are left until service of an unreceived document is deemed effective — under rules the representative has approved, with the representative confirming the date — and remind daily;
  • prepare a draft note to the client about the change in the case — for approval, not for sending.

The common rule: the connector reads and flags. It does not bulk-download cases the firm has no need to access, it works within the scope and at the pace of a person’s work, and every piece of data it reads stays in the firm’s infrastructure or with the EU provider the firm has chosen. Which processes in a law firm qualify for this kind of automation at all is described on our AI automation page; the portal is the simplest of them, because the data already arrives in order.

What cannot be automated — and should not be

  • Receipt of served documents. Since 14 March 2024, in civil proceedings, the court serves documents on professional representatives through the portal where service through the ICT system is not possible (Article 131¹a of the Code of Civil Procedure and the regulation of 12 March 2024, Journal of Laws item 368) — with exceptions for documents served with copies of the parties’ pleadings the court does not hold electronically, and where the presiding judge orders otherwise. The date of receipt is recorded when the user uses the “Receive” function; an unreceived document is deemed served 14 days after it was placed, a period that, where it ends on a Saturday or a public holiday, moves to the next working day. Receipt has procedural effects and is sometimes a decision — on which day to start the clock — so it remains a person’s click. The assistant reminds and counts the days under rules the representative has approved; the representative determines the date, not the automaton.
  • Filing pleadings. The electronic filing office, launched on 1 March 2026, lets representatives file certain pleadings through the portal — appeals, complaints, requests for a remote hearing, requests for an enforcement clause. Filing a pleading is an act of the representative and stays that way; the assistant can check that the attachments are complete and prepare a checklist, while the content, the legal assessment, the signature and the filing stay with the representative.
  • Legal assessment. A summary of an order is not an assessment of what follows from it for the strategy in the case. The model points; the lawyer decides.
  • A shared account “for the robot”. The portal’s terms allow the use only of accounts created for a given user, and treat sharing login credentials and using other people’s accounts as a gross breach. Automation therefore runs on the account and within the scope of a specific user, not on an account created so that it “sees everything”.

Account, access and security

The firm remains the holder of the account and of every access right. Since 30 June 2025 the portal keeps one account per person, identified by the PESEL number, with profiles separating professional from private activity; logging in is possible through login.gov.pl and the mObywatel app, among other routes. A professional representative creates dependent profiles with limited rights for staff and decides their scope — and that is the natural place for an automation’s access: a profile with access only to the cases that are to be monitored, revoked with one click when it is no longer needed.

Four rules we adopt in every implementation:

  • login credentials are handed to nobody and stored in no tool outside the firm — the connector runs in the firm’s infrastructure or with a provider the firm itself has chosen;
  • the scope of reading is limited to the cases the firm designates and is logged, so that what was read and when can be reconstructed;
  • documents from the portal reach the language model only to the minimum extent needed for a summary, and on the firm’s legal basis — it is the firm that processes the data of parties and witnesses;
  • the conditions of API access and the terms are checked at the start of the project, because the portal’s operator changes them, and the project must assume they will change again.

Evidence and recordings — the same pattern

The portal is the simplest case of a broader principle: AI in a law firm starts with material the firm already has and currently reads in full. Case files, contracts, recordings of hearings and meetings, electronic records downloaded from the portal — all of it can be read, listened to and organised so that every finding points to the page or the minute of its source, and the lawyer checks by clicking instead of reading afresh. What document analysis, transcription with speaker separation and case information maps look like — and what we do not promise in any of it — is described on our AI for law firms page.

Where to start

Count how many cases the firm checks in the portal every day and how much time that takes in a week — that is the number before the start, against which you will compare the result. If it comes to several hours a week per person, portal monitoring is a good first project: the data is orderly, the rule is simple, and a mistake is visible at once. If it comes to a quarter of an hour, start elsewhere — for example with the files of one category of cases. Write to us describing your morning review; we will tell you which step we would start from — including when the answer is “not worth it yet”.

Sources, as at 14 September 2026

Frequently asked questions

Does the Polish courts’ information portal provide for access from external software?

Technically, yes. The Minister of Justice’s regulation of 20 February 2026 on the information portal lists, among the technical conditions for using the portal, alongside a browser, a third-party application using the portal’s application programming interface (API). The limits are set by the portal’s terms: a user may only use accounts created for them, sharing login credentials and using other people’s accounts is forbidden, and the portal is monitored for actions that destabilise its operation. Automation therefore runs on the firm’s account, within what that user can see, and the firm is responsible for how the account is used. The scope of API access, how it is obtained and whether a specific solution complies with the terms are set by the portal’s operator and checked by the firm — this describes the technical side, not a legal assessment.

What exactly can you see in the Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych?

The case status, meaning the stage of the proceedings; the court’s actions with dates and the person responsible; scheduled hearing dates; documents produced by the court in electronic form — outgoing letters, judgments, orders, statements of reasons, records; data on the proceedings in the lower instance; the electronic record with audio playback; and, for professional representatives, service of documents in the My Deliveries module and, since 1 March 2026, an electronic filing office. The portal also sends e-mail notifications about changes in cases and new cases on the list. It does not show the opposing party’s pleadings filed on paper until the court scans them, nor anything outside the cases the user has been granted access to.

Can an AI assistant receive served documents from the portal?

No, and it should not. Since 14 March 2024, in civil proceedings, the court serves documents on professional representatives through the portal where service through the ICT system is not possible (Article 131¹a § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure) — except for documents served together with copies of the parties’ pleadings or other non-court documents the court does not hold in electronic form, and except where the presiding judge orders otherwise. The document goes to the My Deliveries module, and the date of receipt is recorded the moment the user uses the Receive function; if the document is not received, service is deemed effective 14 days after it was placed, a period that, where it ends on a Saturday or a public holiday, moves to the next working day. Receipt is therefore an act with procedural effects and a decision for the representative — for example, on which day to start the clock. The assistant can detect a new delivery, remind you of it and count the days under rules the representative has approved; the representative determines the date on which service takes effect and the time limit that follows from it, and the click stays with a person.

Does the portal have an API for law-firm systems?

Yes — since 30 June 2025, when the account model changed to one account with profiles, the Polish Bar Council reported an API configuration allowing only professional cases to be pulled into a firm’s internal systems, without manually filtering out private matters, and the regulation of 20 February 2026 expressly lists third-party applications using the portal’s API. Commercial connectors for practice-management software also exist. The rules for obtaining access, its scope and its limits are set by the portal’s operator and can change — which is why we treat them as something to confirm at the start of an implementation, not as an assumption.

Is the portal integration available as a separate program?

No. We deliver our MCP server for the Portal Informacyjny Sądów Powszechnych only as part of an AI implementation in the firm. A list of changes in cases has little value on its own; the value arises when that list reaches the assistant, the calendar and the document workflow that we configure and test together with the firm, with the scope of data settled in advance and a lawyer in charge. The integration runs on the firm’s account, sees what a logged-in user sees, does not download data in bulk and performs no procedural acts.